Stefan Teleman wrote: > Exactly -- and i'd like to integrate a recent version of binutils
I completely agree. > We already have > a GCC (3.4.3) which uses binutils 2.15. Which would not be harmed at all if you removed binutils 2.15 and replaced it with something newer. The gas/binutils maintainers seem to feel that 2.19 is an upwardly compatible drop in replacement for 2.15, the ARC approved stability for binutils 2.15 is "External", which allows this type of upgrade/replacement without too much effort, etc etc etc. The only issue is that binutils 2.15 is in /usr/sfw, which is the wrong place for binutils 2.19. But, /usr/gnu/gcc4/... is also the wrong place. The *right* place is in /bin and/or /usr/gnu/, just like the rest of the GNU stuff. > This ARC Case [ and any subsequent, related ARC Cases ] does not [ do not ] > address the existing GCC 3.4.3 and/or binutils 2.15. There have been no > change > requests for either the upgrade, update, or removal of either GCC 3.4.3, or > binutils 2.15. > > Any change requests pertaining to either GCC 3.4.3 or binutils 2.15 must > follow > the standard operating procedure for submitting change requests. Future, > unspecified ARC Cases may address binutils 2.15 and/or GCC 3.4.3, pursuant to > the existence of relevant change requests. > > Because of the consequences and complexity of updating/upgrading/removing > either > GCC 3.4.3, or binutils 2.15, comprehensive scrutiny and review of any such > change requests, addressing either GCC 3.4.3 or binutils 2.15, will apply. > Consensus buy-in from all the Consolidations currently using GCC 3.4.3 and > binutils 2.15 will be required. What consequences and complexity? You are proposing the inclusion of binutils 2.1[79], so the scope of the ARC case is properly "is this the right way to do this?". As I said above, this proposal isn't the right way. It would introduce a wart into the system - a complete copy of binutils tied to a compiler version and inaccessible to the users of the system (or alternatively, accessible, but in a very strange location). Both of these violate 1991/061's packaging and delivery advice. -John
